McCain, Talk Radio and the "Fairness Doctrine"

Michael Medved/Townhall.com ^ | 01/31/08 | Michael Medved

[coffee260]

Let’s say you’re attacking someone every day, criticizing some perceived enemy in a tone that is bitter, highly personal, spiteful and relentless. Now imagine, for the sake of argument, that at the very climax of your over-the-top abuse, the object of your assaults makes a point to defend your right to continue to slime him.

Wouldn’t it be appropriate to interrupt your derision for a few moments at least, to acknowledge the other guy’s courage and integrity—and to salute his support for the First Amendment?

Why, then, no acknowledgement by the most prominent conservative talkers on the radio of John McCain’s principled – and appropriate – efforts to block Democrats who seek to reinstitute the awful Fairness Doctrine?

Please check out this brief, but hugely important piece by Mike Sunnocks for the Phoenix Business Journal from June 29, 2007:

McCAIN INTRODUCES TALK RADIO LEGISLATION

Arizona Sen. John McCain has introduced federal legislation to protect talk radio shows from the reinstatement of past rules that required dissenting voices be given equal time on their shows.

McCain and fellow GOP Senators John Thune of South Dakot and Norm Coleman of Minnesota have put forward legislation preventing the reinstatement of the ‘Fairness Doctrine.’

The Fairness Doctrine was done away with in 1987 but previously required political radio shows to offer equal time to opposing viewpoints as part of their Federal Communications Commission licenses.

A number of Democrats and liberal advocates want the Fairness Doctrine put back in place. They do not like the fact talk radio is dominated by conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham.

McCain said imposing such rules would stifle free speech and there are plenty of political viewpoints in the marketplace.

Conservative radio talkers have criticized McCain for his stance in favor of immigration reform.

Reasonable people will agree, I think, that this last line is an almost comical understatement. Conservative talkers didn’t just “criticize” McCain on immigration – they ripped him, reamed him, smeared him every hour of every day, particularly in the middle of last summer (with immigration hysteria at its height).

In other words, at the very moment that talk show hosts concentrated their angry fire on McCain himself (more than any Democrat), the Arizona Senator introduced legislation to defend them from big-government/liberal interference. (A similar bill to block the Fairness Doctrine was introduced in the House by Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana—himself a former radio host—and passed easily).

I became aware of McCain’s role in this issue as part of my efforts to defend the Senator from the ridiculous charges that he has no respect for free speech or the Constitution. It occurred to me that he could counter such current attacks by standing up strongly against the Fairness Doctrine. I planned to communicate with the Senator to convey my bright idea, but after researching the issue I discovered he was way ahead of me: he’d already introduced his Free Speech Protection legislation some six months ago.

There are two important points that need to be made about this issue:

1. THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WOULD BE A DEVASTATING ASSAULT ON FREE SPEECH; McCAIN-FEINGOLD, FOR ALL ITS FAULTS, WAS NOT. Everyone in talk radio knows that imposition of the Fairness Doctrine would destroy our industry overnight. You can’t operate a radio station if you have to “balance” a successful show with another show of the opposite point of view that may or may not be successful. The whole idea makes as much sense as requiring country music stations to “balance” Toby Keith with Mozart and Kanye West. It’s no accident that the whole conservative talk industry, led by El Rushbo, only emerged after the Fairness Doctrine disappeared (under Reagan). McCain-Feingold, on the other hand, has hardly destroyed or stifled free-wheeling political expression in the United States. The six years since the bill’s passage have have produced a shortage of political advertising, or imposed formidable difficulties in spending money to debate issues. The impact of the bill has been so insignificant that none of its critics actually advocate its repeal. It matters far more, in other words, that McCain continues to battle the Fairness Doctrine (that would seriously damage political debate in the media) than that he cosponsored a silly and ineffective piece of legislation (that left vigorous debate vigorously intact).

 

2. THOSE RADIO HOSTS WHO CLAIM THAT McCAIN AND HIS DEMOCRATIC RIVALS ARE “INTERCHANGABLE” SHOULD NOT IGNORE THIS CRUCIAL ISSUE. Leading Democrats (including John Kerry and Senate Whip Dick Durbin) have publicly supported the idea that a new Democratic president should seriously consider “reigning in” talk radio and gagging leading talkers with the Fairness Doctrine. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have said nothing to contradict them – indicating that they are, at the very least, open to the idea. Top talk show hosts have warned repeatedly that Hillary Clinton as president would attempt to wreck our industry. Why no corresponding acknowledgment that McCain has placed himself firmly, courageously on the other side—our side? If our industry counts (and it surely does), then it also matters that Mac means to defend talk radio, while prominent liberals pledge to destroy it. Contrary to all those who insist that McCain, Clinton and Obama are virtually identical in their “liberalism,” this issue (along with at lest two-dozen others) shows a world of difference between Mac’s conservative values and record, and the fatuous “progressive” leanings of the leading Democrats.

It’s important to me as a talk show host and as an American that John McCain has already stood up to defend conservative talk radio even while its most prominent practitioners used their microphones to defame the man every day. A lesser politician might easily succumb to the temptation to deploy government power – or even the threat of government power – to silence the chorus of hysterically strident voices raised against him. McCain’s refusal to do so says something powerful about his character.

And the fact that leading talkers have never acknowledged the Senator’s integrity and leadership on this issue also reveals something significant about the character of his critics.

[coffee260]

My comment:

Mr. Medved--

Senator McCain supports Free Speech? Who knew?

Why should anyone fawn all over the fact that Senator John McCain supports the Constitution? So McCain isn't for squelching all of our First Amendment Rights. Whats so laudable about that?

On the one hand Senator McCain wants restrictions on political speech. But on the other, King McCain will let us peasants have our talk radio. For now. Oh, Thank You! Thank You, Senator.

Give me a break. Since when has not assaulting our GOD given rights been seen as a gift? I'll tell you when. Since this very same Senator has taken his legislative pen to our rights to free speech. Only then would he have to be defended for not going even further.

If you think this helps John McCain with conservatives you are sadly mistaken. It only shows that while he pushes legislation, such as McCain/Feingold, Mr. Freedom of Speech has decided to leave the Surfs talk radio alone. How gracious of him.

What next? Postings of the Declaration of Independence arguing, Senator McCain believes we are still endowed by our creator? (George Orwell, call your radio station.) The irony is delicious.

I do wonder what excuse you'd have if he did, in fact, decide to support the Fairness Doctrine.

Here's one:

"Senator McCain, while supporting the Fairness Doctrine, has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution."

Or:

"Talk radio has demonized Senator McCain, A WAR HERO, for supporting the Fairness Doctrine. Did I mention he's A WAR HERO? Don't these talkers know he's A WAR HERO and that he took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?"

[sourcery]

A vote for McCain is a vote for the second coming of Lyndon Johnson (father of "The Great Society.") Wouldn't your rather have at least one Republican to choose from next November?

McConan the "Republican"? Just say NO!

[Mobile Vulgus]

Here is Medved's method: You guys are jerks, idiots and wrong, wrong, wrong. I am right.... and reasonable people agree with me.

[Matchett-PI]

Medved cuts his own _biased_ throat. Poor soul.

[TNCMAXQ]

Surprising he would oppose a fairness doctrine when he has shown he is OK with limiting free speech in campaigns. I don’t remember the exact details but there was an article on FR within the last couple of years saying McCain would support some kind of law that would mandate civility in campaign ads and perhaps outlaw negative statements. This was astounding to me, and frightening.

[paratrooper82]

Lets see, McCain vs HillBilly presidency?

And the difference would be, what?

[CharlesWayneCT]

Rush explained his problem with McCain. Rush LIVES on free speech, and McCain attacked his free speech rights.

Rush has even suggested that he couldn’t tell people not to vote for McCain because he felt threatened by the ban on mentioning candidates and elections within a month of a primary (like in his state of Florida).

[CharlesWayneCT]

Let’s say you’re attacking someone every day, criticizing some perceived enemy in a tone that is bitter, highly personal, spiteful and relentless. Now imagine, for the sake of argument, that at the very climax of your over-the-top abuse, the object of your assaults makes a point to defend your right to continue to slime him.

When I read this, I thought Medved was saying that someone asked McCain about Rush's statements, and McCain said Rush had a right to make them. Which I thought was funny, because my interpretation of what Rush has said the past week is that someone from the McCain camp has been threatening to invoke the McCain/Feingold bill on him for "electioneering".

But it turned out Medved was NOT saying McCain defended Rush, he was just saying McCain was opposed to the fairness doctrine.

Which really isn't about defending Rush's right to speak right before the election about a candidate, something McCain was dead-set against, probably because he doesn't like people pointing out his record.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

“THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WOULD BE A DEVASTATING ASSAULT ON FREE SPEECH; McCAIN-FEINGOLD, FOR ALL ITS FAULTS, WAS NOT.”

Mr. Medved has just proven he is an idiot.

[nonsporting]

Medved suffers from cognative dissonance. He can defend McCain as a champion of free speech (here), but then ignore the McCain-Feingold 1st Amendment atrocity.

[Michael.SF.]

Actually, since he, Rush, Hannity, and others are still on the air, his point is proven.

If the Fairness Doctrine comes to be under Herr Hillary, talk radio, as it exists today, will be history.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Well Mr. Medved lets give John McCain a cookie and thank him for his support.

Lets say that the fairness doctrine passes. What’s the worst that could happen? Lets see, all of the conservative talkers that are not on XM/Sirious move to satallite radio where the fairness doctrine does not apply. We all have to pay $20 a month to listen to them. Not happy about it, but we still get to listen to them.

Lets see what McCain/Feingold did. It prevented people who don’t have the name recognition and are already at a disadvantage to incumbents from raising enough money to seriously challenge them for the congressional seats. They don’t have an XM/Sirious solution to go to. McCain’s bill protected his own pink rear end and we’re supposed to be thankful for that Mr. Medved?

What makes me laugh is McCain’s anger at Mitt Romney using his own money to win the pub nod. Yet, he passes a bill to protect himself from others trying to take his senate seat. Maybe McCain is really mad at the trophy wife for not giving him any of her family fortune to run his campaign. He’s just taking it out on Mitt.

[Mark was here]

The whole point of McCain/Feingold is to limit free speech, otherwise why do some support it?

[coramdeo]

I fear that Mr. Medved, having swung from far left to the right, is now swinging back in the other direction. He was always a much better movie critic than political commentator anyway.

[manc]

exactly
Feingold and Mc Cain now this

would this be classed as another flip flop by him to try and get conservatives on his side

well I just don’t trust or buy into Mc Cain’s stright talk at all

[Nachum]

Michael Medved is on dangerous ground here. He has angered a goodly number of his listeners. I wonder how this will play out in his future ratings. Will conservatives begin to turn him off?

[cpdiii]

Why I will vote for McCain:

1. Hillary will bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” and destroy the conservative voice on radio. ABC NBC CBS and sometimes FOX are in the tank with Hillary.

2. McCain says he will defeat the fairness doctrine. I hope he is telling the truth.

3. McCain will defend my nation, Hillary will sell it down the river.

4. McCain says he will appoint strict constructionist judges. I hope he is not lying.

He will probably screw up everything else just as Hillary would.

If he is the Republican nominee I will hold my nose and vote for him and then go home and take a bath to get rid of the stench.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

We would be better served having Republican legislatures getting a backbone and standing up to Hitlery’s liberal philosophy than having them all go along with McCain’s shamnesty, liberal tax policy etc...

What in McCain’s past gives you reason to believe that he will go along with the conservative agenda once he becomes potus?

He drops F-bombs on his own party members and gets in their face when they don’t agree with him. What makes you think he has the temperment to deal with foreign leaders that don’t agree with him on everything?

The only way I will vote for McCain is if there is a true conservative on the VP ticket. Maybe Cheney is up to a third term...

Other than that, it is better to be the opposition party. Support your republican senators/congressman running in 08 with your money and your time. When it comes time to vote, vote the pub ticket except for potus. Leave it blank.

I’m originally a Fred head, after he was out of the race I compromised by going with Mitt. I can’t compromise much further than that.

[rintense]

I TOLD YOU HE WOULD!!!!!

[Mogollon]

Lets see, McCain vs HillBilly presidency? And the difference would be, what?

If McCain wins, the GOP gets the blame for the disaster instead of the rats getting the blame.